The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point over the last 4 mo

[mrsleeve]

So I can adjust my taxes by different metrics and then only report the one I like the best just like the BLS


Got it.


Still when you want to report how many people are unemployed, why dont we do that, why do we not count people that are only working 2 days a month?? Why are we not counting the long term but not yet perpetually unemployed, and report on that widely rather than the metric that only shows the wanted results and is in lock step with the wanted rhetoric.

I am not saying this is an Obama issue its been like this for a long while. I am saying the near out right and blatant lies via statistical manipulation and 1/2 truts on this topic is getting a bit tiresome.

[tjts1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...-rate-lower-77

Let me stop you right there... zero hedge? Of all the stupid on the internet you picked zero hedge?

[rwh11385]

So I can adjust my taxes by different metrics and then only report the one I like the best just like the BLS


Got it.


Still when you want to report how many people are unemployed, why dont we do that, why do we not count people that are only working 2 days a month?? Why are we not counting the long term but not yet perpetually unemployed, and report on that widely rather than the metric that only shows the wanted results and is in lock step with the wanted rhetoric.

I am not saying this is an Obama issue its been like this for a long while. I am saying the near out right and blatant lies via statistical manipulation and 1/2 truts on this topic is getting a bit tiresome.

No, you are expected to know the definitions and report correctly, not question the rules because you don't care to read what they are. They provide all metrics and more information than most people care to read. It's only a lazy person who don't think they report X or Y.

It's not blantant lies, you are just absolutely ignorant. The numbers aren't changed to match a message... The crazy people just alter their sense of reailty when they don't like the truth.

Were you complaining about these issues in 2004-2008? Why all these criticisms now? Just because they don't match your desired conclusions?? You want to change the definitions to make it seem like economic progress isn't occuring? Deny it like climate change? Same strategy right? What a joke and escape from reality.

I've offered alternative measures of employment and support Gallup's. The issues of stupid Americans not being apparently capable of educating themselves makes BLS troublesome for them and people attack what they don't understand. So dumb it down for the people.

[mrsleeve]

Let me stop you right there... zero hedge? Of all the stupid on the internet you picked zero hedge?

I seem to recall heeter posting lots of his graphs and charts from Zero Hedge................. with out complaint or laughing gif so fuck off

I am saying let's be honest with what's really going on. Rather than publish some doctored stats that change the rules of who's counted and who is not, every few months and pull people off the back end to get the desired results to show off with.

I mean really how recently did we start counting people that work 2 days a month as fucking employed on the metric for mass consumption?? Really recently if I am not mistaken. Isn't that considered less than part time?

[gwb72tii]

the denominator is still declining

[rwh11385]

I seem to recall heeter posting lots of his graphs and charts from Zero Hedge................. with out complaint or laughing gif so fuck off

1000000000000% WRONG


Just like what you assume doesn't exist because you have never looked.

[mrsleeve]

Not in this thread but others

[rwh11385]

Not in this thread but others

WHAT?! Dude, are you seriously attempting to argue with me about whether or not I consistently make fun of using ZeroHedge as a source? Since when does it make sense for you to tell me based on what you "seem to recall" what my views are?

The ability for you to imply that reality is false to suit your claims is amazing, although also sad. But I guess you have practice. Nothing has come close to this ridiculousness though.

ZeroHedge is a favorite of whackjobs because they enjoy their own kind and would rather use someone's biased opinion that says what they want to read instead of actually becoming informed and having a reasonable outlook based upon facts and logic.

[rwh11385]

I am saying let's be honest with what's really going on. Rather than publish some doctored stats that change the rules of who's counted and who is not, every few months and pull people off the back end to get the desired results to show off with.

I mean really how recently did we start counting people that work 2 days a month as fucking employed on the metric for mass consumption?? Really recently if I am not mistaken. Isn't that considered less than part time?

Why don't you be honest with reality, for once? Or care to find the truth instead of repeating some stupid bullshit you read.

Do you have any evidence besides a whacked out tin-foil hat wearing notion that it's all a conspiracy that the stats are doctored? When have the rules changed? (Or are you just ignorant and running your mouth making assumptions)

Shouldn't you be capable as an adult to find that answer for yourself? Or can you not because it isn't spoon-fed for you like your crazy-ass theories and bullshit that you spew?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf

People who were in school were counted as unemployed instead of "not in the labor force" until 1967.
Differentiating between working part-time for choice vs. inability to find full-time work while available wasn't clarified until 1994.

But since 1959 when BLS took over, the basic concepts have been pretty similar. Technology like computer-based surveys were included, phrasing was clarified, and additional information was captured. The attack you are taking part in right now is questioning a fundamental part of the survey.

You are arguing against reality and history, with... assumptions and ignorance.

http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art2full.pdf

Shit dude, we all know that reality and truth mean nothing when you don't want to let facts get in the way of a good biased attack.


If people really wanted, they could bucket part-time workers by houses but the general idea has been to count part-times and then full-times, both as employed. If you want to segment them down to tiny details because you assume that just because 2 hours could count that it does a lot, how would you scale that information? Deal with people with 70 hour workweeks? Is an unemployment metric go up if someone wants 24 hours instead of their 20? Would any actually read and understand this complication with no comparative data, since few read current information throughout?

[rwh11385]

the denominator is still declining

Actually, if you care to look at facts instead of just making baseless claims, it is not "still declining", it rose in October.

Sept. 2012 -155,063
Oct. 2012 - 155,641
Nov. 2012 - 155,291

Sept U3 rate: 7.8%
Nov U3 rate: 7.7%

A smaller denominator isn't the change between Sept and Nov. The participation rate was the same between Sept and Nov. But trying digging for another poor argument without checking to see if it makes sense first. You like firing randomly into the dark hoping to make a valid point.

[mrsleeve]

I see nothing on there or in your rebuttal as to the recent accounting practice of considering a person employed while only working 1 day out of 14, . Thats is something NEW and the 1st time I have ever run across it was recently.

Tweaking the definitions is something that goes way back to the 60's or further to make things look better than they are, and all the administrations are guilty of it like I said. But as far as I remember, it was mostly moving groups around to pull them off the U/E lists. Like counting the military as "employed", or moving long terms to the "disability list" and so on. I just never remember hearing of so many "changes" in the way people are considered employed to keep them off the Official list every month thats been my point all along.

Why cant we be honest about the real situation and Use the U6 with all the data of all those that are not working that are of age and should be???


My apologies, your big on the graphs and charts, and I recall several posted form Zero, and I know you were a big part of the thread (which one I dont really recall off the top of my head as it was earlier this summer some time).

[rwh11385]

I see nothing on there or in your rebuttal as to the recent accounting practice of considering a person employed while only working 1 day out of 14, . Thats is something NEW and the 1st time I have ever run across it was recently.

Tweaking the definitions is something that goes way back to the 60's or further to make things look better than they are, and all the administrations are guilty of it like I said. But as far as I remember, it was mostly moving groups around to pull them off the U/E lists. Like counting the military as "employed", or moving long terms to the "disability list" and so on. I just never remember hearing of so many "changes" in the way people are considered employed to keep them off the Official list every month thats been my point all along.

Why cant we be honest about the real situation and Use the U6 with all the data of all those that are not working that are of age and should be???


My apologies, your big on the graphs and charts, and I recall several posted form Zero, and I know you were a big part of the thread (which one I dont really recall off the top of my head as it was earlier this summer some time).

I see nothing that shows that this is in fact a recent change from what you posted. Simply you say it's what you think and you may be wrong. I don't operate on assumptions like you do. I have no idea how you go through life in such a way either.

Just because it's the first you heard of it doesn't mean it is a new change. Severe weather doesn't commonly impact a significant amount of employees, you consider that? NO OF COURSE NOT - You instantly jump to conspiracy! And screw actually researching to find out if you are right or not before stating a claim! You haven't heard of this before so therefore it must be new and cannot possibly be your lack of knowledge that's the issue!

If you had never looked at the sky and then one day decided to look up and see that it were blue, would you have claimed that the sky changed color?

This is what the article referred to (current methodology):

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment, employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period.

I mean really how recently did we start counting people that work 2 days a month as fucking employed on the metric for mass consumption??

People who were not at work due to weather considered as employed dates back to 1967. I know, really really recent.

Here's the definition of people who couldn't work due to issues such as weather from 1967:

c) Persons “with a job but not at work” because of strikes, bad weather, etc., who volunteered that they were looking for work were shifted from unemployed status to employed.

People were counted at with a job but not at work if they missed the entire week.

Data on persons “at work” exclude persons who were temporarily absent from a job and therefore classified in the zero-hours-worked category, “with a job but not at work.” These are persons who were absent from their jobs for the entire week for such reasons as bad weather, vacation, illness, or involvement in a labor dispute.

Or if you look at the image I posted from the antique survey, you can see that there is a difference from not working at all due to weather vs. being able to work some.

Here's a 2006 document that includes:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/02/art2full.pdf

Reference periods and paid and unpaid workers

Workers away on temporary unpaid absences also are included as employed, falling into a category known as “with a job, not at work.” This
category includes workers who have a job at which they did not work during the survey week because they were on vacation, were ill, needed to take care of family or personal obligations, were on maternity or paternity leave, were involved in a labor dispute such as a strike, or could not work due to bad weather.

Have you ever paid attention to changes? Are these actual changes or just things you were ignorant of and assume are changes? Is the problem what the BLS produces or Americans who cannot read?

U6 is trending down as well. And people would just make wild accusations about that too. Here's plenty of others from BLS if you want to take your pick: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm With people ignorant to facts and assuming whatever they feel like, there is nothing the BLS can do to cure the problem (clueless people). They try to provide FAQs but it's all for not when the news and bloggers fill people's heads with lies and bullshit, and people trust ignorant opinion over facts.

I like the payroll-to-population metric, but it misses out on demographic trends too just like BLS's. Without considering other data, the understanding of the issue is lost and people try to substitute a complex issue with one simple number. It's a metric that should be included with other things, but tells a story if you know what it is saying, and also what it isn't saying. And what is included and not included. That requires people to read what definitions mean and not just cry foul because they want to supposedly take issue with what has always been there because they didn't know about it and interested now in seeking out any reason to call conspiracy.

Who of working age "should be working"? Should we ban housewives? Ban college education because they should be working? End the ability to retire because they should be working too? We need better "out of labor force" data and I have been saying that for a while. This would be so people have better data on demographic trends and can be better educated about the participation rate and what is healthy or not based on trends in society. But would anyone actually read it?

[gwb72tii]

gee, silly me, i thought you'd posted on the november unemployment rate, not october
in which case the denominator shrank to an all time low

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[rwh11385]

gee, silly me, i thought you'd posted on the november unemployment rate, not october
in which case the denominator shrank to an all time low

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

DO YOU EVEN READ? (Or more importantly, do you read actual data and information or just biased misinformation and ignorance from ZeroHedge)

a) Labor force participation rate is not the denominator, civilian labor force is... which was lower in Sept than Nov (and actually... see below for more...)

b) Your link shows that Nov wasn't at the all time low...

August had a participation rate of 63.5, which is lower than 63.6 last time I checked... but you don't care to check facts or base your argument on them because you are used to lying and misleading people who don't care to ever look up data to counteract your endless stream of bullshit. The current participation rate was same in April and Sept as November, and August was lower, so therefore not at "an all-time low".


Referring to the denominator instead of the participation rate you incorrectly referenced...

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000

The ONLY month that had higher seasonally adjusted labor force was last month, October. So in reality, the denominator has only been larger ONCE.